Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Curatorial Matters

The Fisher Folly: SFMoMA’s Bad Deal

We’ve never known exactly the details of the deal that the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art made in 2009 with the Fisher family to get its collection (better described, actually, as access to the family’s collection–at first for 25 years and later changed to 100 years). And we still don’t. But an article by Charles Desmarais in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Unraveling SFMoMA’s Deal for the Fisher Collection, bares more about it than I’ve ever seen before. What he reports is troubling, very troubling.

FisherCollection-SFMoMAI urge you to read it. But because it is behind a paywall–and you may not have access to it–let me post some key elements here, counting down to the worst part, in my opinion:

  • A grouping of Fisher collection works must hang together in the galleries once every 10 years.
  • The museum’s partnership is with an entity called the Fisher Art Foundation, but Doris Fisher actually owns most of the works. Like any lender, she can recall a work on loan to the museum any time she wants. Only those owned by the Foundation can’t have “private use.”
  • Of about 1,100 works in the Fisher collection, about 260 are on loan now to the museum—and only five of them are owned by Doris Fisher. But how many others in the whole collection does she own? We don’t know.
  • The Doris and Donald Fisher Collection Galleries—occupying the museum’s fourth, fifth and sixth floors–are required to contain primarily Fisher works at all times. No more than 25 percent of what is on view may come from other lenders or donors.

The final bullet point is critical. As Desmarais wrote:

It means that something like 60 percent of SFMOMA’s indoor galleries (not counting free-admission areas that serve as combination lobby and exhibition spaces) must always adhere — or, at least, respond — to a narrative of art history constructed by just two astute but obdurately private collectors…

[Thus] for the next 100 years, [museum curators’] job will be limited in those galleries to a kind of scholarly embroidery, filling in around the edges of a predetermined scenario with works by other artists, such as women, artists of color or California artists.

Devoting that much space, 60 percent, to the Fisher collection is way too large a proportion of the museum. The Lehman wing at the Metropolitan Museum* is most analogous; the collection must stay together as it was at the time of the gift. But, while I don’t know what proportion of the Met’s total space the wing occupies, but it must be paltry by comparison with the Fisher deal–and yet it was controversial.

And at SFMoMA, the provision lasts for 100 years, no less–which creates another problem. The Lehman collection was older art; it had weathered centuries of exposure and criticism and emerged as museum-worthy. The Fisher Collection is contemporary art: who knows how it will be viewed in 100 years? Take a look at the list of artists written about by Vasari. Where are some now? And whom did he leave out?

Desmarais didn’t mention the financial part of the deal in his story, but at the Met, the Robert Lehman Foundation provides a substantial annual payment to help defray the cost of the wing.

I understand the pressure that SFMoMA director Neal Benezra must have been under to cut a deal with the Fishers. But it seems to me that he and the museum’s board were out-negotiated. I–and, I think, others–will have to look at the museum differently, knowing these details. I hope other museums do not emulate Benezra and the museum’s trustees.

I commend Charles, a friend, on his digging. We need more of it.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of SF MoMA

 

George Goldner: Nothing If Not Opinionated–And Entertaining

It’s not quite The Car Guys, but an exchange at a recent symposium at the Frick’s Center for the History of Collecting* has tickled a couple of people I know, who mentioned it to me. It’s called Philippe de Montebello Interviews George Goldner and it’s about Golder’s career buying drawings at the Getty and, ahem, the Metropolitan Museum of Art.* (The two have an exchange about “The Met” and, later, “The Met-82nd St.” which may be inside baseball to some but not to others.)

PdM-GGThere are a number of gems, including, in no particular order and very briefly:

  • The difference between acquiring a painting and a drawing at the Met: trustees think they know something about paintings but most confess they know less about drawings. “So it’s easier to step off in a corner and do what you want,” Goldner said. “You can overwhelm them with fear of their own ignorance.”
  • And another difference: some trustees do not understand why they should buy drawings by some artist whose name they do not recognize. “But a great drawings collection should have great things and others that illuminate the great things” and more. Goldner says a museum should want a mix.
  • Personal taste shouldn’t rule. Goldner says he bought German baroque drawings even though he didn’t like them. And he doesn’t think Courbet, for one, can draw, but he still bought a piece of his. “I’ve never looked at it since we bought it, and if someone gave it to me I wouldn’t hang it,” he said.
  • He  bought about 8,000 drawings for the Met. Over his 35-year career, “I’ve never gone more than a month without finding a drawing I wanted to buy.”
  • There’s no real dearth of great works out there–what there is is a decline in interest in buying drawings.

And can you guess his answers:

  • What is “the plague …that has overwhelmed art museums?” (About 21 minutes in…)
  • Whether he made mistakes in his purchases? (Yes, but what?)
  • What he most regrets not buying–and more important why?

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met and the Frick

Since We’re Voting, There’s This Artistic Conundrum

Lest you think I have no sense of fun from my last post, which chastised the Indianapolis Museum of Art for outsourcing its exhibition planning to the public, I thought I would mention an instance where I think engaging the public is fine.

YoungMan-1497It has been taking place at the Royal Academy since mid-March, in connection with the exhibition, In the Age of Giorgione. The show sounds terrific–you can read this Guardian review of it–and the RA added to it by focusing public attention on a painting that has mystified art historians. Made in the late 1490s,  Portrait of a Young Man has alternately been attributed to Giorgione and to Titian.

So the RA is seeking public opinion in a vote–but not after giving three or four sentences of explanation. I do not know what information has been given in the galleries, because I have not seen the show, but online there’s a wealth of it.

Here, for example, Peter Humfrey makes the case for Giorgione. He talks about line, texture, composition, visage of the youth, and so on–with illustrations for comparison. Paul Joannides argues for Titian, citing the composition, the skill of execution, and so on. You don’t have to be an art historian to read either one.

The RA also posted an article from its magazine headlined The Enigma of Giorgione. It posted another magazine feature–two art historians debating whether attribution matters, and another about other artists in Venice at the time.

Now people have a sense of the artist, the times, and the stakes. Now they might cast informed votes.

At the time of this writing, the vote was… I don’t want to say, but only 2% of the participants voted “neither.” You can go to this link to find out (at the bottom).

Either author, it’s a pretty gorgeous picture.

Photo credit: Courtesy of the RA via The Guardian

 

Indy Decides to Outsource Exhibition Decisions

For the last few years, the Indianapolis Museum of Art has, it seems to me, been on a crazy trajectory. As soon as it does something smart, it turns around and undermines itself. Now it seems to be hitting a new low.  Not content to anger its local constituency in 2014-15 by attempting to charge $18 in admissions to enter its grounds and restricting entry to one point (leading to charges that the museum was becoming “a fortress”), the IMA is now attempting to assuage–and presumably please–the crowds in a way that should anger the museum profession.

The museum is using a public web-based survey to decide what exhibitions to present, thus turning over its curatorial expertise and prerogative to the public. And what is likely to be a random, perhaps even misleading, public at that. This museum, with an excellent and encyclopedic collection of more than 54,000 works of art, is now taking the low road to high attendance.

The proximate cause of my distress was posted on Facebook several days ago by none other than its director, Charles Venable. “Those of you in the Indy area please take this survey about what exhibitions you would like to see at the IMA. Thanks, Charles,” he wrote.

robotWell, though I don’t live anywhere near Indianapolis, I quickly clicked on the link–and there’s no way to see what’s in the survey without taking it. So I did. And that’s the first fault with this online survey. Are all answers valid? How do they know if I was honest or not? How do they know if I live in the Indy area?

But the survey itself was offensive. It listed and described, in three or four sentences and with a few illustrations, six exhibitions and asked “Based on the description above, how likely would you be to visit the IMA to view this exhibition? Exhibition is included with general admission to the IMA ($18 adults, $10 ages 6-17, free children 5 and under, free IMA members).”

And what were the exhibitions? Here are excerpts from the descriptions.

The Art of Forgery, with examples from Roman days through “more recent” ones. “The fake artwork will be displayed alongside an original piece so guests can examine the differences.  Learn about some of the most common techniques employed to create these forgeries, as well as methods used to unmask forgeries in museum collections including pigment analysis, carbon dating, X-rays and more!”

Japanese Paintings, “signature paintings by notable Japanese artists from this [Edo] period. The stunning works in this exhibition have been on display in Japan and will not be on display again in the U.S. until after 2021.”

Joris Laarman Designs, “an overview of the work of Dutch designer Joris Laarman. He is best known for his innovative, experimental designs inspired by emerging technologies like 3D printing and robotics.”

Rise of Robotics “ is comprised of a multitude of objects such as robots from the domestic sphere, industry and medicine, as well as media installations, video games and examples from films and literature. It will also address some of the moral, ethical, and political questions intertwined with robotics today.” (See one object to be shown above.)

Hot Cars, High Fashion, Cool Stuff  “is a history of our times as embodied in the art of design objects, fashion and cars, …[with pairings] representing each decade’s unique style, from turn-of-the-century art nouveau to postmodernism. These vignettes will be accompanied by videos to provide context about the time period when these objects were created.

Orchids “will showcase a range of orchids of different colors, shapes and patterns…highlight the history of orchids and …ways in which they have traditionally been used (e.g., medicinally, in food). Orchids of all shapes and sizes will also be available for purchase in the Greenhouse and a dedicated shop.”

IMA also asked if adults would attend a Murder Mystery interactive experience at its Lilly house, but that’s another topic altogether.

Now which do you think will appeal to the general public? Hot cars and robots, probably. Will that mean no more real art at Indy?

I am equally concerned with the ethics and the implications of this outsourcing its curatorial duties. Why would a curator want to work at IMA? Shouldn’t curators believe that they can, with their specialized knowledge and research, make their subject compelling to the public? Shouldn’t the director make choices among curatorial options? Isn’t that what he or she is paid for? Should that pay drop if such decisions are outsourced? Are three or four sentences, plus a few pictures, enough for the public to weigh in on whether they would attend?

Maybe a robot could be tasked with these decisions,

Venable didn’t say what the IMA would do with the results of this unrepresentative survey. It also asked questions about ethnicity, income, ages of children in the respondent household, whether the respondent would take their to the museum for each exhibit, etc.  Maybe it’s a foil to ask those questions (but I doubt it.)

Whatever happens, no copycats, please! This is a bad idea, even if the results are ignored.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art (top)

 

 

“Unfinished” Business: Reflections As the Met Breuer Opens to Public

In my experience, whenever a critic writes a review, some observations have to be left out. There’s no room; they don’t fit thematically without great, leaping transitions, or some other reason intrudes. Maybe they are fleeting thoughts, worth sharing in conversation but not meant for a written review. Those tidbits are what I plan to focus on here, in my first reaction to the Unfinished exhibition organized by the Metropolitan Museum of Art* (a name I use on purpose on first reference, lest we forget what “The Met” actually represents) for its first foray at the Met Breuer.

Later this week, the public will be allowed in–so it’s time to post what I think.

I’ve now seen Unfinished twice, and Jan_van_Eyck_-_St_Barbara_-_WGA07617I concur, for the most part, with many of the early reviews. Unfinished: Thoughts Left Visible is unquestionably more interesting on the third floor of the building, where works from the 15th through the early 20th centuries are installed. (At least that is what the wall label says. See below for the actuality.) The fourth floor, where modern and contemporary works are on display, starts out strong with wonderful paintings by Picasso and Cezanne, among others, but degenerates largely because most of the works there are not unfinished, as the Met’s own signage indicates.

Here’s what I think, in random order:

  • The Unfinished theme–which I initially thought was a good one–turns out to be lacking, for two reasons. If the Met, with its intellectual and monetary resources, could not pull it off, then it probably could not be done. Second, while many works on display are feasts for the eye, the Unfinished theme invites viewers to look at them for the wrong reason, thus making the exhibit into a bit of a game.
  • Still, Unfinished is definitely worth a visit: the loans are spectacular. They include van Eyck’s Saint Barbara (above left) and Leonardo’s drawing Head and Shoulders of a Woman, both masterpieces, as well as many other masterpieces.
  • If, as I’ve read (but not checked against a checklist), some two-thirds of the exhibition is borrowed–an impressive proportion–that means about a third of the works here reside at the Met. I would guess that many, of not most, are rarely if ever on view. Yet many are fascinating. Go see them before they are returned to storage.
  • CorotFor example, the Met owns many works by Manet (I can’t tell you how many, because the museum’s new website’s collection search function is not working properly; it’s giving me Tissots, Degas and others among the Manets) and I therefore wonder if The Funeral, an unfinished painting from c. 1867, thought to depict Baudelaire’s funeral, is usually on view. (If it is, it’s overshadowed by his finished works.) At the Met Breuer, the label says that it was still in Manet’s studio at the time of his death 15 years after the event. It was donated by Catherine Lorillard Wolfe, much of whose collection has been deaccessioned over the years, if my memory serves.
  • Some works on view have very interesting stories behind them. A beautiful Corot (above right), for example–Boatman Among the Reeds–is a finished painting, with Corot’s trademark “tiny flecks of colored paint [that] appear to float above the fictive space of the picture,” says the label. But, it continues, critics warned viewers not to get “too close” to Corot’s paintings–“nothing is finished, nothing is carried through…Keep your distance.”
  • An even better example is Titian’s Portrait of a Lady and Her Daughter. Titian left it (at left below) unfinished in his studio, and after his death “the painting was altered by someone in the studio to depict Tobias and the archangel Raphael (at right below)…only in the second half of the 20th century was the underlying tender but incomplete image of the mother and child revealed.”

Titian

  • NotTitian
  • The Met’s mix of chronological and thematic display here is confusing…and not worthy of the Met. The introductory label, for example, says clearly that the 3rd floor is not contemporary art. But there in a corner section are works by not only Lucien Freud but also Elizabeth Peyton. Why? It’s a section about portraiture.
  • The room devoted to Turner holds some terrific works called of “complex and ambiguous status” in the wall label. No one knows what Turner planned next for them. But these few works made me really sad that I did not see the Tate’s late Turner exhibition in 2014-15.
  • Criticisms aside, some paintings here clearly show how an artist worked, what they painted first, how they sketched or did preparatory sketches, etc. See below. That’s a worthy goal.

UnfinishedPortraits

  • I know some people at the Met have been dismayed by the negative criticism, and some have told me “you have to read the catalogue.” Sorry, that doesn’t hold water. Back in 2011, Gary Tinterow–then still at the Met, now director of the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston–commented on a different blog post here: “At a large museum like the Metropolitan, fewer than 5% of the visitors to an exhibition will buy the catalogue; typically only 2-3% at a popular exhibition (more than 250,000) will leave with the catalogue in hand.” I am guessing that is still the case. Curators cannot program to the 2 to 5%; they must get their message across to most of the public.
  • My biggest takeaway is disheartening: the Met had much time to work on this show and it still slipped short of the mark people expect from the Met. How will it be able to program the Breuer space given the shorter time frame it will have going forward? Already, some shows planned for Fifth Avenue–I’ve been told but have not verified–are being moved to the Met Breuer. The Met’s modern and contemporary department has already grown in size, while other departments have not. I’d like the Met to succeed on Madison Avenue, but right now I’m a bit skeptical.